This image, used by three projects, is well-illuminated, with good depth of field and resolution, and illustrates the flower and hairy bracts and leaves of this species. -- Walter Siegmund(talk)
Comment A scale bar is most applicable to traditional microphotography with little depth of field, I think. I found no discussion of scale bars on Commons. On English Wikipedea, some discussion has occurred but no consensus is apparent, c.f., en:Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Anthomyiidae_sp.jpg, en:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Loligo vulgaris, and en:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Dense mass of anomuran crab Kiwa around deep-sea hydrothermal vent.jpg. Some find scale bars helpful; others find them unappealing and distracting. The latter favor discussing size in the file description. In the third discussion, the subject has considerable depth so that the scale varies. The size of one individual may be misleading, if the individual is exceptional. Voucher specimens permit measurements to be reproduced whereas this is not possible for field photography. Most of the species that I photograph are well-described. My measurements may add little value. I added size information to en:Veronica arvensis.[1] I agree that it is helpful to include size information in the file description, however. Thank you for your review, 15:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment I always take a picture with a scale that I put in the median plane of the object. It is easy, then make a dash for inclusion in the final image. The scale should always be very discrete. In the picture you did, the mere fact that the flower is 3mm is sufficient and very helpful.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]